Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:03:39 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>
>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:45:49 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawyerkill wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 14, 2:51�pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
>>>>>>>> AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF
>>>>>>>> ALLOWING THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN
>>>>>>>> LIMITATIONS. GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN
>>>>>>>> THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
>>>>>>> Ok. �Let's try this. �Why does the gov't do a better job? �They can
>>>>>>> print money?
>>>>>> 1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
>>>>>> insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices. The
>>>>>> decision for government is not one of maximizing profits. �It is one
>>>>>> of making certain that there is adequate overall incentive in
>>>>>> medical services to insure competence and quantity. �At present we
>>>>>> have the most bloated and expensive health care system on this
>>>>>> planet and _NO_ _WAY_ to control costs. �When Medicare attempts to
>>>>>> control costs, the providers shift the prices to the insurance
>>>>>> companies who must compete with one another and who must pay
>>>>>> whatever rate the providers might want. �For some unknown reason
>>>>>> this is supposed to be a black mark against Medicare. It is actually
>>>>>> a black mark against the "free market" health insurance companies.
>>>>>> �They CANNOT CONTAIN COSTS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually
>>>>>> need a "pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in
>>>>>> claims. If such fluctuations arise then government can borrow less
>>>>>> expensively than private industry. �Do not confuse this with typical
>>>>>> government debt. �It can be an initial pool that is paid down over
>>>>>> time in a totally off budget system. �The SS and Medicare trust
>>>>>> funds tell us that such mechanisms don't work. �They are repeatedly
>>>>>> used as pools of money to hide deficits. �It would be better to
>>>>>> operate the social insurance systems in a BORROWED pool that is
>>>>>> TRANSPARENT and the cost of which is paid by dedicated taxes (i.e.
>>>>>> FICA and Medicare taxes), and paid in premiums. �The idea of
>>>>>> government INVESTING from an accumulated pool is stupid. It creates
>>>>>> all kinds of political crap about how to AB-USE the funds. �Health
>>>>>> care costs what it costs and will cost in the future. � Trying to
>>>>>> "save up a bunch of money" is stupid. �No matter what you do the
>>>>>> healthy will be paying for those who are not healthy. �That is how
>>>>>> INSURANCE works no matter who runs it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and
>>>>>> to pay a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and
>>>>>> �executives, and then pay bonuses to people who figure out how to
>>>>>> screw the policy holders out of their benefits. �The Social Security
>>>>>> Administration and Medicare Administrators maintain very good on
>>>>>> line facilities and phone access lines that provide for "customer"
>>>>>> interface, and they do it quite well at a low cost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently
>>>>>> than does the private insurance sector.
>>>>> Then why is Medicare going broke?
>>>> Coburn's incorrect, but you figured that out for yourself. :-)
>>> Coburn is _NOT_ incorrect at all on the stuff you are attempting to
>>> suggest below.
>> That will be a first.
>>>> Here's the data:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Medicare has lower administrative costs when they are calculated as
>>>> a % of total health care costs managed. Medicare is at 3%, the private
>>>> insurers are at 12%.
>>> FACT.
>> Yes. An irrelevant one to the discussion. Medicare and the private
>> insurers are in different market segments, and thus cannot be compared
>> by such puerile metrics.
>>>> 2) That seems more efficient, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
>>>> Medicare is a seniors health care program, while private insurers
>>>> cover those not on Medicare. Put another way, Medicare covers people
>>>> who need a lot more heath care (or are sicker, with more deadly
>>>> diseases) than do private insurers, whose members are, on average, far
>>>> healthier.
>>> FACT.
>>>
>>>> 3) That means that the average claim size that Medicare handles is
>>>> much larger than that of the private insurers. It takes just as much
>>>> admin time to handle a $50,000 bill than it does a $50 bill.
>>> NOT TRUE. Smaller claims are seldom contested claims in either case.
>> True. Proven. Data shown. Get over yourself. You're not the brightest
>> bulb in the universe. You prove that every day.
>>>> 4) Further, Medicare just processes whatever they are given
>>>> mindlessly, while the private insurers spend time contesting and
>>>> investigating claims to eliminate fraud and lower costs.
>>> LIE. (see below)
>> Then scratch it out. It's not germane to the overall point, and I'm not
>> in the mood to quibble with you over trivia. Past experience shows that
>> you are unable to focus on the core assertions and are easily distracted
>> by bright, shiny objects on the periphery. I suspect adult ADD, but I'm
>> not in the mood to diagnose your many dysfunctional characteristics.
>>>> That balloons admin costs but
>>>> results in lowered health care costs. You don't see that fact
>>>> illustrated in a pure admin/cost comparision.
>>> Contested claims DO add to the costs in the private sector MORE THAN IN
>>> THE MEDICARE SYSTEM. How much of it there is remains undefined.
>>>
>>>> 4) If you look at administrative costs on a PER PERSON basis rather
>>>> than a percent-of-claims basis, Medicare's admin costs were 24.8%
>>>> higher than the private insurers.
>>> In other words: If we turn the data over to the rightarded
>> Ooh. Coburn's inner fifth grader comes out. Shall we all do a group
>> "naner, naner, NAAAner......!"
>>
>> What a jokester.
>>
>>
>> stink tanks
>>> they will figure out a way to mash numbers and lie like hell.
>>>
>>>> Charts are he
>>>>
>>>> http://timerealclearpolitics.files.w...s.com/2009/06/
> admincosts1.gif
>>>> (Coburn can be expected to shriek when he sees the 'Heritage' logo,
>>>> but a dislike for a particular organization is not a refutation.)
>>> In the case of Cato or Heritage all claims are refuted out of hand.
>> Only by the idiots of society. Discarding factual evidence due to source
>> is a well-known logical fallacy. If you had been involved in high school
>> debate, you'd know that, because you'd have gotten your school
>> disqualified the first time you tried it.
>>
>> But, don't worry yourself. The educated people here know a logical
>> fallacy when they see one. We'll take it from here.
>>
>> This
>>> pig shit is a good example. We don't see overhead per claim here. The
>>> per claim data will again swing back to favor the Medicare
>>> administration. On the per person basis older people make a LOT MORE
>>> CLAIMS than the youngsters. And a lot of those claims are quite small.
>>> Many are simply for drugs, and the seniors use a lot of drugs.
>>>
>>>> Medicare's an adminstrative nightmare from an efficiency standpoint.
>>> Yet another religious opinion from Galt.
>> There is no one more religious in your pursuit of fiction than you.
>>
>> But, I always admire your ability to parse out relevant facts in pursuit
>> of the ones that back up your preconceptions. You have a lot in common
>> with the thought patterns of a Baptist preacher. Come up with a theory,
>> search out verses that can be interepreted to back up that theory, and
>> for God's sake disparage anyone who suggests that there are other verses
>> that dispute you.
>>
>> Same stuff.
>>
>>
>>>> Anyone who tells you that they are more efficient are either
>>>> uninformed or lying.
>>> Anyone who basis an analysis on numbers from Cato or Heritage are
>>> religious zealots OR morons. I think I pretty well stomped the crap
>>> out of Galt's claim concerning the overhead.
>> Of course you do. You're a legend in your own mind. Nobody who can do
>> the math, however, missed the overall point, which is simply that
>> comparisons between companies operating in two different market segments
>> have to account for the difference in those segments.
>>
>> Your inability to understand changing conditions is largely responsible,
>> I would guess, for your failure as a human being. Sorry about that.
>
> Like I said, Galt, your claims about the Private sector being more
> efficient are shown to be spun Heritage pig manure. -- per patient
> statistics my achin' ass.

The usual refusal to deal with the argument --- instead, all we get is
your usual hubris.

Point stands unrefuted. EOM.

JG


>
>>>>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167
>>>>> "That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the
>>>>> trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you
>>>>> will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social
>>>>> Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while
>>>>> dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap
>>>>> is $45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a
>>>>> fancy term for "today's dollars.")"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>
>
>